Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-09-13
a NOVEL CASE.
Suit for the Possession Of . Dead
Hody.

ouis TOE Enc toBecsslou OF q Dead
Hody.
TRENTON, N. j., Sept. i .-one OF the
oldest cases In the court annals of the
county has just been argued before Vice
Chancellor Bird. The suit involves the
ownership OF a dead body. These are the
facts as they appear in the brief OF COM
plainant's attorney.
James A. Peters died in December,
1884, leaving q widow, the defendant,
Mary S. Peters, and an infant aon q week
old. BY consent of the widow the body
OF James A. Peters was buried in the
plot OF complainant in Hedding cemetery.
Tbs widow subsequently sought to re-
move the remains to another lot without
the consent OF the complainant, the father
OF the dead man. The suit was brought
asking for N injunction to restrain such
disinterlnent. The defendant Mary A.
Peters, answer the hill in the triple ca
pacity of widow, Administrative Of de-
lcendent and as guardian of the infant
heir. She demos that she consented to
the permanent interment of her husband
in the complainant's burial lot, and as
serts that u understanding was that tn
body should be buried there until she
could buy y seperate lot. She states that
shs is fulfilling the last request OF her
husband, who asked to be buried in q
separate lot, In order that his wife and
child might be buried by his side.
Whatever the courts lave decided con-
corning the right to the custody Of he
dead before interment, it Is q settled
principle sustained by all the cases that
where interment has once taken place in
. proper manner, with the consent of all
those having the right to select the place
OF sepulture, the courts will not permit
q disinterment against the wishes OF any
OF b parties interested In the remains.
And while the courts will interfere to
protect the grave where the remains lie,
they arc slow to permit, against the OBJ
lection OF The relatives, a removal after
they are once buried. In this case the
defendant, Mary Peters, gave her con-
sent to the burial Of hsr husband in the
eomplainant's cemetery plot, and under
h law as laid down In all the decisions
on this subject, she can not revoke her
consent and dtsinter the body Of her hus-
band without the consent of this com
plainart. In her capacity OF adminis-
tratrix Of her husbands estate she has
performed her full duty In procuring the
decent interment of her deceased hus.
bands body, and she can not be allowed
to burden his estate vita the expense OF
q second interment.
1t ID alleged on the part of the COM
paainant that he buried his son at a great
expense, and had the grave bricked and
cemented to Illustrate body. s%natchers. He
claims that Mrs. Peters intends to open
the grave during the night and take tho
body of bis son, that she has employed
men TO assist her, and claiming that he
has. no other remedy prays for an In
junction. Dsfendant's counsel simply
contend that Mrs. Peters, being the
widow Of Peters and the administrators
OF his estate and guardian of his heir,
has the sole right to, do as she pieases
with the body, and In 40 far as she IL
Carrying out the wishes Of the deceased
has exclusive control of the corpse. The
vice chancellor has reserved his decision.